Skip to main content

About your Search

20130208
20130208
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
sort of think they have an advantage. but what is getting cut? the pentagon is taking the brunt of these cuts. certainly the commander in chief doesn't want that to happen. a ton of democrats are quite fine with seeing pentagon spending cuts. so, you know, it's sort of like nobody really wants it to happen but both sides are sort of okay with it. >> to the point of who might have the upper hand, charles krauthammer wrote this. obama's bluff is being called and he's the desperate water. what should they do? nothing. cheryl, there are others who are saying that if this happens, at least we get those cuts. what's the feeling on capitol hill right now? >> well, i think there are some republicans who are fairly public about the fact that they do not want to see the seek questions sister cuts go through. a lot of these republicans represent the heavy military presence, a the lo lot of defen contractors in their area. generally ryan is right, they don't want to see the cuts go through but they are kind of preparing for it, that this is going to happen. they view the president's offer f
, that this sequester is -- because of its sort of blunder bust approach that it does not permit the pentagon to make intelligent choices about what is needed, so it is going to get to readiness. ready city council what we need. >> this is the absurdness of washington. >> the white house proposed the -- >> proposing to get agreement on this. now the new strategy is, yeah, but you can't let that sequester happen because the spending cuts would be so awful when, in fact, there are democrats like dick durbin who will be on the program sunday who have said he doesn't really have a problem with the amount of spending cuts in the pentagon. it's a matter of how you go about doing it. republicans i think also have some leverage here by saying, you know, if you really get us down to it, if have to swallow these spending cuts, we're going take them because that might be good. you got your revenues there. zoolt sequester, we don't like it, but before it on. >> there's a lot of pain. particularly if are you from virginia and you have military cuts coming down your way, this is tough. spending cuts are tough. the
, had any onpanetta strongly defended the pentagon's response to the benghazi attack that left ambassador chris stevens and three other americans dead. panetta told lawmakers there just wasn't enough time to get u.s. forces or attack aircraft to the scene. >>> today president obama will speak at a military farewell service for panetta. >>> michelle obama plans to travel to chicago to attend tomorrow's funeral for 15-year-old hidea pendleton, an honor student and band major ret who participated in the inauguration festivities about a week before her death. hidea was the victim of random gun violence last week, fatally shot about a mile from the obamas' chicago-area home. no arrests have been made. >>> the big story of the day, that potentially historic blizzard bearing down on the northeast. if weather channel meteorologist jim cantore shows up in your town, that's got to be bad news. jim is live in boston for us this morning. what's the latest there? >> just to let you know how bad i think this one's going to be, i brought a yardstick. there's only been one time i've ever broug
to overthrow the assad regime. the plan had received support from the pentagon, the cia, secretary clinton. but ultimately it was the white house that turned down the idea. >> both of you agreed with petraeus and clinton that we should start looking at military assistance in syria, is that correct? >> that was our position. i do want to say, senator, that obviously there were a number of factors that were reversed here that ultimately led to the president's decision to make it nonlethal. i supported his decision in the end. but the answer to your question is yes. >> for both of you? >> yes. >> "the wall street journal" says the white house was concerned about which rebels could be trusted with arms. was also worried about the risk of drawing the united states into another military conflict. but it was questions over benghazi that led to the most heated moments with secretary panetta and general dempsey defending the administration's response to the deadly raid on the u.s. consulate. >> for you to testify that our posture would not allow a rapid response, our posture was not there because w
in the private sector, including serving on the board of a major contractor with the pentagon. mr. gates gave speeches, lots of them, for which he was paid plenty. but when bob gates testified before the senate, the subject of his private sector earnings never came up. after five hours of non-confrontational questions, the committee volt ford him unanimously. and then when it went to the full senate they confirmed him 95-2. the nominee before, that remember this guy? donald rumsfeld, 2001. donald rumsfeld, of course, had made zillions in the private sector. he sat on the board of a company that was believed to have won a giant contract to help north korea build nuclear reactors. but when donald rumsfeld testified before the senate, they didn't ask about the stock that he held or his roles in international business. they didn't even ask about the north korean reactors. they recommended his nomination to the full senate where he was confirmed in another vote of 95-2. so if history has anything to say about it, then what's happening to chuck hagel right now is not at all normal. it is not the re
to vote today on hagel's nomination to head the pentagon, but that vote has been postponed after republicans said they hadn't received sufficient information about hagel's financial records and specifically about any payments he's received from foreign sources. that's an odd hurdle given that republicans never seem concerned about foreign revenue sources when it came to nominees from george w. bush. one democratic official working on the hagel nomination told politico, quote, what they're asking is unprecedented, and it's clear that it's information that he's unable to provide. hagel says he can't provide it because it would violate confidentiality of the boards that he serves on. of course, critics say this is about more than incomplete financial records. so why are republicans really holding up hagel's nomination? aaron david miller is vice president for new initiatives at the woodrow wilson center. he has served as an adviser on the middle east to both democratic and republican secretaries of state. and joe klein is a columnist for "time" magazine. gentlemen, buzz feed pointed
the pentagon, his answer was simple. no. but i kept asking. i am persistent. that's how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to leon's patriotism, to his sense of duty that he agreed to serve on this one last tour. and perhaps it was the memory during world war ii of his parents opening up their homes to gis headed for the pacific. perhaps it was because leon served himself as a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deploy to afghanistan. what we do know is this, as our nation's 23rd secretary of defense, every action leon panetta has taken, every decision that he has made, has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. and just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq and are winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we've put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat, and we've been relentless against its affiliates. because we have a sacred
the sequester in a hurry, then yes, it's a real problem because it doesn't let the pentagon begin to plan and distribute, if you will, the cuts. but at the end of the day, whether it's defense spending, education spending, health spending, what always matters more than how much you spend is how you spend it. and so i'm not, at the end of the day, all that worried about how much we spend, whether it's on defense or anything else. you just want to have the time to make some intelligent cuts rather than have to make them literally in a matter of days which would probably mean that readiness more than anything else would be cut out of the defense department account. and that's probably the one thing you don't want cut out of it. >> sam stein, you're close and yet so far away over there at the jump seat. what are the odds that the sequester actually takes place? we know the president's proposed something to push them back a while. are we going to see these kind of cuts, the ones that were outlined in the sequester proposal? >> i think the odds are pretty high, to be honest. i don't think there
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)